Gay Marriage Vote Nears in DC; Fight Over Religious Exemptions

[Marcia]

As I stated on another thread, if this bill passes without the ammendment granting exemptions to individuals, they will be in violation of the law. Iow, if you are a photographer and refuse to photograph a gay wedding in D.C., you will be violating the law. Right now the bill only contains exemptions for churches and church officials regarding performing the ceremony. This does not include Christian charitable organizations, however, which could be charged with violating the law.

The Archdiocese of Washington is continuing to press for broader exemptions in the D.C. Council bill to legalize same-sex marriage, warning that Catholic Charities may not be able to serve residents of the city if the bill is not changed.


..."The exemption language contained in the committee [bill] is far too narrow, and must be expanded to include appropriate safeguards to protect religious freedom to preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other service providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the residents of the District of Columbia," wrote Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the Archdiocese.



The council bill, sponsored by Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) but partially rewritten by Mendelson, states a church or religious official can deny services related to the "solemnization, celebration, or promotion" of a same-sex wedding without fear of running afoul of the city's anti-discrimination laws.



But churches would still have to abide by other aspects of the city's Human Rights Act, including not discriminating against gay employees who choose to get married.



In her letter, Belford argues the bill still leaves the church vulnerable to lawsuits if it or its members decide not to sanction same-sex marriages.



The church, for example, believes it should be able to deny partner medical benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married. Under the Human Rights Act, such discrimination could be judged to be illegal. <MORE>

Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html

The vote on this bill is next month, and if it passes, gay couples will be able to marry in the nation's capital probably in the spring.

 

[Marcia]

No one here seems to care that gay marriage may soon be legal in our nation's capital. Just think about it - in our nation's capital. And it may put Christian charities out of business.

 

[Revmitchell]

I wouldn't go that far

 

[Johnv]

This does not include Christian charitable organizations, however, which could be charged with violating the law.

That's not true. Religious charitable organizations are de facto protected by the establishment clause and free excercise clauses of Amendment I, and has been extensively tested and upheld in the courts.

For example, even though gender discrimination is illegal, religious organizations can refuse to hire women. Even though ethnic/racial discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hire people of certain ethnicities. Even though religious discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hrie people of certain religions.

 

[Johnv]

No one here seems to care that gay marriage may soon be legal in our nation's capital. Just think about it - in our nation's capital.

DC is a sovereign disctrict. Although I disagree with gay marriage, I support DC's sovereignty in deciding its marriage laws.

 

[tinytim]

I just saw the news report on local DC news.. .I love the fact that the Catholic church is threatening to withhold money from DC.. MILLIONS if they don't give more exemptions!
GO Catholic Church... stick it to DC!

And the councilman that was interviewed of course said the church was discriminating...

Oh those poor perverted abominations that call themselves "Gay"...
They may get their sissy feelings hurt.. booo hoooo hooo..

They need to grow up and be real men.. .not sissy loving freaks of nature they are!


John, sorry, but DC's sovereignty doesn't trump God's morals...

 

[tinytim]

That's not true. Religious charitable organizations are de facto protected by the establishment clause and free excercise clauses of Amendment I, and has been extensively tested and upheld in the courts.

For example, even though gender discrimination is illegal, religious organizations can refuse to hire women. Even though ethnic/racial discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hire people of certain ethnicities. Even though religious discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hrie people of certain religions.

JOhn, do the research on this issue in DC.... it is true. At least the DC council is trying to make it true...

 

[Johnv]

I've done so, and what I posted is correct.

John, sorry, but DC's sovereignty doesn't trump God's morals...

We don't have the right to dictate to DC which of God's morals it wants to apply to law.

 

[Marcia]

That's not true. Religious charitable organizations are de facto protected by the establishment clause and free excercise clauses of Amendment I, and has been extensively tested and upheld in the courts.

For example, even though gender discrimination is illegal, religious organizations can refuse to hire women. Even though ethnic/racial discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hire people of certain ethnicities. Even though religious discrimination is illegal, religious groups can refuse to hrie people of certain religions.

There are 2 issues raised in this article - Catholic Charities, which may have to stop their services in DC, and individuals, such as caterers, who will not be protected from violating the law. This is on today's front page of the Washington Post:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

...Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

...."Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html

If Alexander's amendment is rejected, which it seems for sure it will be, then the caterer cannot refuse to do this cake without breaking the law.

 

[Marcia]

I've done so, and what I posted is correct.

We don't have the right to dictate to DC which of God's morals it wants to apply to law.

This is about the city council dictating to some religious charities and to individuals (such as the caterer and photographer, which I've mentioned numerous times) that they cannot discriminate. So if you are a caterer and asked to do a wedding cake with 2 grooms or 2 brides, you must do so or you will violate the law, which I assume will lead to a fine.

There is a hot debate over this in DC and I've been following it. I know the issues. I've posted them here. But you keep on insisting things are not the way they really are. Are you in denial or what?

 

[KenH]

Christians perhaps being persecuted because of their faith? Isn't that what we should expect throughout the world as the norm? Sometimes I think that we American Christians consider the relatively brief period in human history where we have been relatively free of adverse consequences from being Christians is what we should expect, yea, a very right of being an American Christian.

II Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

 

[Revmitchell]

Christians perhaps being persecuted because of their faith? Isn't that what we should expect throughout the world as the norm? Sometimes I think that we American Christians consider the relatively brief period in human history where we have been relatively free of adverse consequences from being Christians is what we should expect, yea, a very right of being an American Christian.

II Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Oh yea..let's just sit around and let it happen.

 

[KenH]

Oh yea..let's just sit around and let it happen.

I have never said anything close to that.

However, I am also reminded of this passage from Romans chapter 5:

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

 

[KenH]

I am reminded of a hymn by Isaac Watts called "Am I A Soldier Of The Cross":

1. Am I a soldier of the cross,
a follower of the Lamb,
and shall I fear to own his cause,
or blush to speak his name?

2. Must I be carried to the skies
on flowery beds of ease,
while others fought to win the prize,
and sailed through bloody seas?

3. Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
to help me on to God?

4. Sure I must fight, if I would reign;
increase my courage, Lord.
I'll bear the toil, endure the pain,
supported by thy word.

5. Thy saints in all this glorious war
shall conquer though they die;
they see the triumph from afar,
by faith they bring it nigh.

6. When that illustrious day shall rise,
and all thy armies shine
in robes of victory through the skies,
the glory shall be thine.

 

[Nonsequitur]

DC is a sovereign disctrict. Although I disagree with gay marriage, I support DC's sovereignty in deciding its marriage laws.

"DC is a sovereign disctrict."
After 15 minutes of Googling, (is that a word?), I can't find where there is such a thing as a 'sovereign district' in the U.S. constitution.
Maybe you can, Johnv.
Show me.

 

[Marcia]

Christians perhaps being persecuted because of their faith? Isn't that what we should expect throughout the world as the norm? Sometimes I think that we American Christians consider the relatively brief period in human history where we have been relatively free of adverse consequences from being Christians is what we should expect, yea, a very right of being an American Christian.

II Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

My point in the OP and this thread is not the Christians are being persecuted. I never said that. I am trying to point out a major change about to take place in our nation's capital. It's symbolic at the very least, and a very bad sign of things to come at the worst. This kind of thing is going to affect aspects of our lives that right now we don't have to worry about.

And I think Christians (and there are other groups against gay marriage as well) should speak out on this because basically our freedom to act on our beliefs could be eroded by this one issue.

 

[KenH]

1) This kind of thing is going to affect aspects of our lives that right now we don't have to worry about.

2) And I think Christians (and there are other groups against gay marriage as well) should speak out on this because basically our freedom to act on our beliefs could be eroded by this one issue.

1) How will D.C. doing this affect my life? I don't live in D.C. We have already amended our state constitution to take care of the homosexual marriage situation. Unless the federal government is going to eliminate state governments then I don't see how what D.C. does will affect my state.

2) If we don't live in D.C. then I don't see how we can have influence on what the local government in D.C does. Also, I think we should do what God would have us to do regardless of whether we have the freedom to do it or not.

 

[Johnv]

"DC is a sovereign disctrict."
After 15 minutes of Googling, (is that a word?), I can't find where there is such a thing as a 'sovereign district' in the U.S. constitution.

??? I don't find the phrase "elastic clause" in the Constitution either, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. You're obviously just trying to be argumentative.

 

[Johnv]

This is about the city council dictating to some religious charities and to individuals (such as the caterer and photographer, which I've mentioned numerous times) that they cannot discriminate.

A for-profit secular company can't discriminate, this is already so. But a religious charity can, regardless of whether they pass the law or not. It's constitutionally guaranteed, and has been heard in the courts numerous times. The aforementioned law won't change that.

 

[Marcia]

A for-profit secular company can't discriminate, this is already so. But a religious charity can, regardless of whether they pass the law or not. It's constitutionally guaranteed, and has been heard in the courts numerous times. The aforementioned law won't change that.

Catholic Charities is threatening to pull its operations out of D.C. Did you read the article??

There's another article on this today. They cannot discriminate because they receive some public funds and would have to abide by the city's laws. Their adoption agency could not refuse adoption to same s*x couples, for instance.